Skelton: We Caught Him, We Caught Him

By Benny Martinez
University of New Mexico/Talk Radio News Service

Rep. Ike Skelton (D-Mo.) used just three words to describe how the United States has handled the Times Square bomb scare incident: "We caught him."

Skelton along with fellow Reps. Silvestre Reyes (D-Texas) and Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.) told reporters on Thursday that he supports the administration's response to and handling of the capture of the alleged plotter, Faisal Shahzad.

Thompson said that under the Constitution, Shazhad, who according to Attorney General Eric Holder was mirandized sometime after his arrest, was a naturalized citizen and therefore entitled to have his rights read to him.

"Few have focused on the facts that we also stayed true to our cherished constitutional principles," Thompson said. "To those who seek to politicize this very serious terrorist incident by attacking Miranda, the Fifth Amendment and due process, I say shame on you."

The Congressmen all applauded the efforts of the citizens of New York, saying that every American plays a role in counter-terrorism.

When asked why Faisal Shahzad was not being monitored by intelligence agencies after flying to Pakistan, Reyes said, "We know that we can't keep every single person under surveillance, that's not what you do in a democracy."

"The totality of this case says we've got our stuff together," Reyes added. "We're able to confront these threats...[and] I think we all need to understand that we all have a role to play here."

House Armed Services Chair Backs McChrystal's Afghan Strategy

By Meagan Wiseley - University of New Mexico/Talk Radio News Service

In a hearing Wednesday before the House Armed Services Committee Chairman Ike Skelton (D-Mo.) and Ranking member Howard McKeon (R-Calif.) said they both strongly support General Stanley McChrystal’s proposed counterinsurgency (COIN) strategy in Afghanistan and have sent a letter to McChrystal requesting him to testify before the Committee.

Retired U.S. Army General Jack Keane echoed a similar sentiment during his testimony before the committee, saying the U.S. must “put in play a COIN strategy with the appropriate military, civilian and financial resources.”

Gen. Keane, who retired in 2003, described the U.S. attempt of counter-terrorism (CT) in Iraq between 2003-2007 and said during that period of time “we were failing and we nearly lost the country.” He says the situation in Afghanistan has "simply gotten worse” because of the CT strategy being used in currently. He believes CT strategies are valuable, but must be used as a compliment to a “fully integrated civil-military counterinsurgency strategy.”

Gen. Keane cautioned the use of a COIN strategy without the proper amount of troops or resources saying it will “fail and fail miserably.”

However, a voice of dissent came from Dr. Paul Pillar, former Deputy Directory of the CIA’s Counter-terrorist Center, who instead believes the U.S. should avoid bolstering its military presence.

"An expanded military effort in the cause of counterinsurgency in Afghanistan would be unwarranted," Pillar said. The former CIA official went on to say he believes the cost of counterinsurgency, U.S. equities, monetary resources and American lives, would outweigh the benefit.

"Last week the President told members of congress that his decision [on the war in Afghanistan] will be timely," McKeon said during the hearing's close. "My hope and expectation is that the President will make a decision on resources in the coming week and stick with it."

"Time is of the essence,” McKeon added.

First Phase Of New Missile Defense Plan Could Take Place By 2011

By Ravi Bhatia-Talk Radio News Service

The first phase of the Eastern Europe new missile defense strategy proposed by the Obama administration could be executed by 2011, Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Michele Fluornoy said during her testimony before the House Armed Services Committee Thursday.

According to Fluornoy, the former plan proposed by the Bush administration would not have been implemented until at least 2017.

The congressional members of HASC and Dept. of Defense officials also discussed the technical aspects and international repercussions of President Obama’s new plan for missile defense.

“The intelligence community now assesses that the threat from Iran’s short and medium-range ballistic missiles is developing more rapidly than previously projected, while the threat of potential Iranian Intercontinental Ballistic Missile capabilities has been slower to develop,” Fluornoy said in a released statement. “[This means that] the primary threat posed by Iranian missiles will be to U.S allies, our 80,000 deployed forces in the Middle East and Europe, and our civilian personnel.”

The new plan eliminates the Bush administration’s missile defense system, which would have deployed a radar system in the Czech Republic or 10, 20-ton Ground Based Interceptors in Poland in order to deter as many as ten long-range missiles. The new approach relies on a distributed network of sensors and one-ton SM-3 interceptors, which are 20 times lighter then the GBIs employed by the former plan but are not restricted to land-based launches.

HASC Chairman Ike Skelton (D-Miss), and other members of HASC, noted that the Obama administration’s plan was not entirely due to the administration's efforts, and that the plan stemmed from bipartisan Congressional action in 2006.

“In 2006, the National Defense Authorization Act established a policy of the United States to accord priority to developing, testing, and fielding near-term effective missile defense systems,” he said. “In our bill two years ago, we made it the policy of the United States to develop, test, and deploy effective missile defenses for our forward-based forces, our allies, and our homeland against the threat posed by Iran’s existing and potential ballistic missiles.”

Rep. Buck McKeon (R-Ca.), Ranking Member of the HASC, discussed some of the issues that some Republicans have with the defense plan, particularly in light of Iran publicly testing their long-range missile capabilities last week.

“I’m skeptical,” he said. “There seems to be this certainty within the administration that the Iranians can't develop an IRBM or an ICBM by 2015, and that these aren’t real threats to be worried about. Does this certainty consider foreign assistance? Does this certainty account for uncertainty? Intelligence is a risky business. Friday’s revelation that Iran is building a covert uranium facility is a case in point.”

Stress And Suicide In The Military

Stress And Suicide In The Military

One great thing about the current state of journalism is that it is impossible to sweep things under the rug. Some blogger somewhere is going to take up the cause. It is, however, information explosion, and so some things go unnoticed and do not receive the attention they deserve. There is one issue that has reached both bloggers and the mainstream press. It is psychological stress and military suicide. The New York Times is running a series of articles, and the House Armed Services subcommittee on Military Personnel had a hearing about it on Wednesday.

In a statement released by Chairman Ike Skelton’s office, the Representative addressed the problem not as an end point but as a chain of events. He said, "It is the final step an individual takes when they can no longer deal with the stressors in their life." He said that it was important to determine why the suicide rate has increased and what stressors led to it.

Some of the testimony came from Gen. Peter Chiarelli, vice chief of staff for the Army. His main point was that they couldn't just focus on reducing the number of suicides; they have to address the stress and anxiety faced by the military and the results of that stress such as increased substance abuse, infidelity and even reckless driving. The numbers are not pretty. Last year in the Army alone there were 140 suicides, translating into a rate of 20.2 per 100,000 soldiers. In January and February there were 41 suicides compared with 16 in 2008. By anyone's standards that is a whooping amount of suicides.

My view is that part of the problem lies with recruitment. Recruiters are rewarded with how many bodies they can bring in to the all-volunteer military. I once asked the head of recruiting for one of the military branches if he had one wish for training potential recruits before they signed up for active duty what would it be? He replied, "financial literacy." He said they get credit cards, get a girlfriend or wife and start charging. Soon they are up to their necks in debt, and it adds huge pressure to their military service.

In the Air Force they found that young enlisted men with a rank of E1 to E4 and between the ages of 21 and 25 have the highest risk of suicide. That is not surprising given that brain development is more complete by age 25. The pre-frontal cortex, which helps reason over impulse, is more fully formed by then. There is a reason car companies don't rent cars to people younger than 25 without a surcharge. The young adult brain is just not fully developed.

Other factors in the Air Force suicide rate include relationships gone awry and poor coordination among professionals. Weekends were the prime time for suicides, and there was also poor communication between the treating mental health providers and commanders. There is always tension in the military between confidentiality and the need to communicate with supervisors. This is now being addressed so that soldiers can discuss personal issues without being worried about facing discharge.

Each branch of service is engaging in suicide prevention programs. In Iraq they deal with post traumatic stress right away, not when someone gets home. Programs are set up so that there is immediate intervention before the trauma is replayed over and over by the less-advanced part of the brain.

There are some issues that go right back to engagement strategies, including too many back-to-back tours of duty and the fact that National Guard duty has become synonymous with active service. It was never intended to be that way, but it functions that way. The other problem is young wives who have not had parenting education and are raising children as a single parents because their loved ones are on active duty across the oceans. This puts enormous stress on them and their husbands who are alone and enlisted.

The military is doing its best to try and address these problems and has engaged in the lives of these soldiers in ways that have been previously unheard of. However, little of the testimony on Wednesday dealt with recruitment. It was a glaring deficit in the hearings and must be addressed by a more complete assessment of incoming recruits.
There also needs to be less focus on getting bodies in and more focus on finding recruits who can handle stress, as well as financial and family problems. It is time our military began to look at what happens before someone enters the service, not just after. The other option is the draft, and some liberals including Chairman Charlie Rangel thinks that would make a military more like the rest of America. It is worthy of consideration and may make a stronger and healthier military.

Punishing the Pirates

By Kayleigh Harvey - Talk Radio News Service

When you think of pirates you may think of the man with the wooden leg, an eye patch and the parrot on his shoulder. Today, in the 21st century, although pirates may dress differently than their stereotypical model, the crime of piracy on the sea is still an issue.

The U.S. House Armed Services Committee today heard testimony from Vice Admiral William Gortney, Acting Principal Director of the Office of African Affairs for the U.S. Department of Defense, Daniel Pike, Ambassador Stephen Mull, Acting under Secretary for International Security and Arms Control for the U.S. State Department and Karl Wycoff, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for African Affairs for the U.S. State Department on combating piracy on the high seas.

Committee Chairman Ike Skelton (D-Mo) said in his opening statement: “Recent events in the Gulf of Aden and off the coast of Somalia, however, make this very much a current and important issue for American national security.”

The hearing focused on how to tackle piracy and how to best reprimand those who are caught committing this offense on the seas.

Vice Admiral Gortney told the committee that “no-one is immune”. He said that pirates generally look for a “15-minute window of opportunity,” tackling “low and slow ships by pulling up alongside them”. Gortney added that these boats are hard to detect as “they look like fishing vessels.” The committee heard that piracy crimes are generally committed in the morning and as a result, “any ship less than three feet away, particularly in the morning, is treated as a suspected pirate ship,” he said.

Vice Admiral Gortney also stated that the failure to counter piracy threats was not the result of failed training. He said that measures were being taken in order to protect ships on the seas, such as “barbed-wire, look-out post and security patrols.”

Congressman Gene Taylor (D-Missi) asked Ambassador Mull whether a ship, targeted by pirates, baring the American flag, would be treated as committing an attack against America. Mull’s response was inconclusive, and Congressman Taylor and Chairman Skelton have asked the Ambassador to submit a written statement outlining in detail, to the committee how this crime is dealt with under international and domestic law.

Piracy is an issue being tackled by all nation states and the Combined Maritime Forces have established the Maritime Security Patrol Area in the Gulf of Aden to combine a united front to tackle piracy crime at sea.